Re: RIF UCR REVIEW

I agree that RIF/RAF is necessary for UCR. This is clear for me.
Regards,
Adrian  
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007, Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com> said:

> 
> Adrian Giurca wrote:
>> 
>> Dave Reynolds wrote:
>>>
>>> Adrian GIURCA wrote:
> 
>>>> By the way, many questions in RIF/RAF are meaningless for interchange.
>>>
>>> Possibly so, would you like to give more details on that?
>> I have in mind the following  languages: Prolog, F-Logic, Jess, Jena2, 
>> SWRL, JBoss Rules, Oracle Business Rules.
>> The terminology used in RIF/RAF 
>> <http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Rulesystem_Arrangement_Framework> 
>> is pure logical. In some languages it is not straightforward to express 
>> these questions.
> 
> Agreed. I certainly remember an issue/action about adding more 
> production rule friendly RIFRAF questions for example.
> 
> My question was not meant to imply "I think RIFRAF is just fine" (far 
> from it, I'm not personally happy with the set of RIFRAF questions) just 
> to encourage you to clarify your specific concerns.
> 
>> Lets look now to some questions:
>> 1.1.1. For me this seems to don't apply for too many languages.And how 
>> helps us the choice: "Only single occurrence of variables per predicate"
> 
> +1
> 
>> 1.1.2 The choice "Head-only variables allowed"
>> 1.3. Do you allow this in Jena2?
> 
> No.
> 
>> 2.5 What is the meaning of this question in JBoss Rules, Oracle Business 
>> Rules for example? But in Jena2?
> 
> I guess the fact that Jena2 only has binary predicates would go in there.
> 
>> 2.7 "...Unlabeled Clauses"  Which languages have clauses?
>> I don't want to extend the discussion now.  This is not my goal. I 
>> accept the document as it is. However, I suppose it is better that the 
>> RIF/RAF to be public and then its results to be used against 
>> requirements. Otherwise the Core may not really use the UCR and/or 
>> RIF/RAF document as an input.
> 
> For me the current labeling of the RIFRAF section as being very much 
> work in progress makes it acceptable for a working draft but I agree it 
> has a way to go yet.
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> 

--

Received on Wednesday, 28 February 2007 08:31:15 UTC